Pendency of representations before a central competent authority justifies promotional claim disposal through a speaking order.

The three applicants were appointed as Assistant Engineers (Civil) in the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) around 2012

Despite completing several years of continuous service and becoming eligible for promotion under relevant rules, they have not been considered for the same, while their batchmates were promoted as early as 2017

The applicants submitted multiple representations dated 13.12.2022, 17.02.2024, and 21.10.2025, which remain pending

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, noting that the applicants are posted in West Bengal and Haryana

The applicants contended that since the Director General (the competent authority) is in Delhi and the promotion decisions are made at the Headquarters, the Principal Bench has jurisdiction

1. Whether the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal has territorial jurisdiction over a matter where the applicants are posted outside Delhi but the competent authority/HQ is located in Delhi

2. Whether the Tribunal should direct the respondents to decide the pending representations regarding the applicants' promotion

The Court considered the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 regarding the continuing cause of action arising from pending representations

It examined the principle of "cause of action" as defined in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 254, which clarifies that the mere situs of a government office does not automatically confer jurisdiction unless a part of the cause of action arises there

Furthermore, the court looked at the procedural rules governing promotions handled by centralized statutory authorities

The Court evaluated the respondents' objection to territorial jurisdiction against the applicants' claim that the "inaction" of the respondent—who is seated in Delhi—constitutes a cause of action within the Principal Bench's jurisdiction

The applicants argued that because the promotion authority is centralized at the ESIC Headquarters in New Delhi, the stagnation and failure to decide on their representations occur at the Headquarters

The Tribunal, without delving into a final determination on the merit of the jurisdictional challenge or the merits of the promotion claim, found that the interest of justice would be served by directing the competent authority (Respondent No. 1) to resolve the administrative silence

The respondent is ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the law within four weeks of receiving the order

The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the promotion claim, and all pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) were similarly disposed of